ILNews

COA rules on landowner first-impression issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals needed to decide whether an urban or residential landowner owes a duty to protect neighbors from damage caused by a tree falling from the landowner's property.

In J. John Marshall and Marjorie Marshall v. Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Cindy Cain, No. 20A03-0908-CV-366, Cindy Cain's home is next to a vacant lot owned by Marjorie Marshall, which John helped to manage. Elkhart code enforcement told them that a tree on the lot needed to come down, so John had a professional arborist inspect the tree. The arborist just visually inspected the tree and determined it didn't need to be taken down. The tree later fell onto Cain's house. Her insurer, Erie, reimbursed her for the repairs and brought a suit against the Marshalls for damages for negligent maintenance of the tree. Marjorie died before the bench trial concluded.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Erie; John filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

John argued there was insufficient service of process upon Marjorie. Even though someone else signed the return receipt indicating the notice was received, the service by mail was effective, ruled the appellate court.

John also claimed the trial court erred in finding they owed a duty of care to Cain. Judge Margret Robb wrote it would appear the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 363 forecloses the issue of whether the Marshalls owed any duty to protect Cain from the fallen tree. But that would leave urban or residential landowners essentially powerless in the face of a neighbor who refused to remove or secure a dangerous tree just because it was a natural condition of the land. Like several other states, the appellate court adopted a reasoning that departed from the strict application of the rule in context of urban or residential property.

Living in close quarters substantially increases the risk that a falling tree will cause damage or injure someone, and similar to the problem relating to a highway - as mentioned in the Restatement rule - the reduced size of property lots in an urban or residential setting make the burden of time and money to inspect and secure trees relatively minor especially as compared to the potential damage that could result from the tree's fall, she wrote.

The appellate judges held that an urban or residential landowner has the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners arising from the conditions of trees on his or her property.

The trial court properly applied a duty of reasonable care to the Marshalls, and properly found that sufficient evidence supported the Marshalls breached that duty and that John was jointly and severally liable since he acted as Marjorie's agent in care of the lot.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT